You can also look at Japan, where railroad isn’t even the main moneymaker for the companies that operate them (pretty sure some even run at a loss). Instead, it’s the hubs that those railroads create (ie all the real state connected to the stations which is owned by the railroad companies and can be rented out to businesses).
In essence, railroads shouldn’t be built because they’re profitable. They should be built because they’re a basic necessity for unifying a country/region. The profit comes from the increased mobility and the new hubs and opportunity that mobility can create. But most politicians are too short-sighted for this.
The Western business mindset isn’t compatible with this approach. If you have a business that has 2 portions and only one is profitable you split it and dump the unprofitable part. If the government forces you to do both you just cut costs from the unprofitable train making everything shitty for everyone.
The Asian cultural Zeitgeist has more focus on stewardship so if someone gives you a responsibility (public transit) and a privilege (commercial hubs) you understand that the great power comes with the great responsibility. You’re still a capitalist and get rich as fuck, but society benefits too.
Yes, railroads are rarely profitable. It’s usually a investment which you recover in the form of greater mobility and economic opportunities it brings. What happens in US/UK is that after years of pumping money into the project and cutting scope in desperate attempts to finish it it becomes impossible to recover it in any form because it simply doesn’t move enough people. Government sees it as a failure and is reluctant to invest in other projects. Without continuity private companies can’t plan long term and focus only on one project trying to get as much money out of it as possible. And the cycle continues…
Another issue is the car-centric culture of the US and the fact that rail and any other form of public transportation directly impedes upon the car companies’ profits (including building sidewalks). This means that any project has to fight an uphill battle against corporate lobbyists or avoid simply being bought out and disbanded like what happened to the various highspeed rail companies in the 2000s.
France is another interesting one to take a look at. I watched a video awhile ago on the history of highspeed rail in France, and if I remember correctly, while they’re culturally closer to the US and the UK, highspeed rail has a history as a point of competitive national pride for the French and so they’re culturally favorable to it because they’ve held the title for the fastest trains in the world a couple of times.
You can also look at Japan, where railroad isn’t even the main moneymaker for the companies that operate them (pretty sure some even run at a loss). Instead, it’s the hubs that those railroads create (ie all the real state connected to the stations which is owned by the railroad companies and can be rented out to businesses).
In essence, railroads shouldn’t be built because they’re profitable. They should be built because they’re a basic necessity for unifying a country/region. The profit comes from the increased mobility and the new hubs and opportunity that mobility can create. But most politicians are too short-sighted for this.
The Western business mindset isn’t compatible with this approach. If you have a business that has 2 portions and only one is profitable you split it and dump the unprofitable part. If the government forces you to do both you just cut costs from the unprofitable train making everything shitty for everyone.
The Asian cultural Zeitgeist has more focus on stewardship so if someone gives you a responsibility (public transit) and a privilege (commercial hubs) you understand that the great power comes with the great responsibility. You’re still a capitalist and get rich as fuck, but society benefits too.
Yes, railroads are rarely profitable. It’s usually a investment which you recover in the form of greater mobility and economic opportunities it brings. What happens in US/UK is that after years of pumping money into the project and cutting scope in desperate attempts to finish it it becomes impossible to recover it in any form because it simply doesn’t move enough people. Government sees it as a failure and is reluctant to invest in other projects. Without continuity private companies can’t plan long term and focus only on one project trying to get as much money out of it as possible. And the cycle continues…
Another issue is the car-centric culture of the US and the fact that rail and any other form of public transportation directly impedes upon the car companies’ profits (including building sidewalks). This means that any project has to fight an uphill battle against corporate lobbyists or avoid simply being bought out and disbanded like what happened to the various highspeed rail companies in the 2000s.
France is another interesting one to take a look at. I watched a video awhile ago on the history of highspeed rail in France, and if I remember correctly, while they’re culturally closer to the US and the UK, highspeed rail has a history as a point of competitive national pride for the French and so they’re culturally favorable to it because they’ve held the title for the fastest trains in the world a couple of times.